Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
Pandarinathan - Appellant
Vs.
Ramasamy - Respondent
Review Application No. 190 of 2018; Second Appeal No. 1658 of 2000
Decided On : 05-10-2018
P. Jagadeesan, Adv., S. Sivakumar, Adv., A. Muruganandam, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review jurisdiction, which is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.
Headnote:
Review Application - Suit Property Dispute - Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929, Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - [II of 1929, 1937, 1956] - The court reviewed the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.B.K. Vasuki in S.A.No.1658 of 2000 dated 07.08.2015. The court discussed the applicability of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929, Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the context of the dispute over the suit property. The court held that the Act II of 1929 is not applicable to ancestral property and that the rights of the widows and heirs were determined based on the relevant laws. The court also addressed the validity of settlement deeds and the entitlement to partition of the suit properties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over suit properties among the descendants of the original owner Krishnan. The trial court found the settlement deed dated 08.03.1985 to be valid and decreed the suits in O.S.Nos.58 and 59 of 1990. The Additional District Judge partly allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits in O.S.Nos.58 and 59 of 1990. The court formulated substantial questions of law and additional substantial questions of law during the course of arguments.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the review application, holding that the review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The court found that the points raised by the petitioners should have been raised before the appellate court and therefore, the review application was not maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929, Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining the rights of the parties over the suit property. The court also addressed the validity of settlement deeds and the entitlement to partition of the suit properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limited scope of review jurisdiction, which is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized that a review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise and that the points raised by the petitioners should have been raised before the appellate court.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded.
P. Rajamanickam, J.
This review application has been filed by the respondents in S.A.No.1658 of 2000 to review the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.B.K. Vasuki in S.A.No.1658 of 2000 dated 07.08.2015. Since the Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.B.K. Vasuki retired, this review application has been posted before me.
2. The brief facts are as follows :
One Rukmaniammal had filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Ariyalur against one Ramasamy, Vijayaraghavan, Andalammal and Others to declare the settlement deed dated 08.03.1985 executed by the said Rukmaniammal in favour of the said Ramasamy and Vijayaraghavan on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The said Ramasamy and Vijayaraghavan have filed a suit in O.S.No.58 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Ariyalur against one Pandarinathan, Madhavan and Muthukrishnan to declare their title over the suit property on the basis of the settlement deed dated 08.03.1985 executed by the said Rukmaniammal and for consequential permanent injunction or alternatively for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The said Andalammal had filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Ariyalur against one Jayalakshmi and Rukmaniammal for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating or encumbering the suit properties till the properties are partitioned by metes and bounds. One more suit filed along with the aforesaid three suits is O.S.No.57 of 1990 by one Govindammal against the said Ramasamy, Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Receiver and Others for declaring her right over the suit property and for permanent injunction.
3. The properties which are the subject matter of the four suits originally belonged to one Krishnan and the plaintiffs and the defendants in all the four suits are his male and female descendants. All the four suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 26.02.1998. The trial court has found that the settlement deed dated 08.03.1985 (Ex.A3) is a valid document. It also found that the partition arrangement (Ex.B6) was not true and enforceable and not binding on either Rukmaniammal or Ramasamy or Vijayaraghavan and as such Govindammal/plaintiff in O.S.No.57 of 1990 was not entitled to claim title over the property. It also found that the power of attorney (Ex.B5) which was said to have been executed in favour of Pandarinathan and Madhavan was not proved and the same was not binding on either Andalammal or on Varalakshmi. It also found that Pandarinathan and Madhavan have no right over the property. It also found that the said Muthukrishnan did not prove Ex.B16 Will. Accordingly, the trial court has dismissed the suits in O.S.Nos.76 of 1988 and 57 of 1990 and decreed the suits in O.S.Nos.58 and 59 of 1990.
4. The Aggrieved parties preferred A.S.Nos.2 to 5 of 1999 before the Additional District Judge, Perambalur. A.S.No.2 of 1999 was filed by the second plaintiff-Muthukrishnan against the dismissal of O.S.No.76 of 1988. A.S.No.3 of 1999 was filed by the defendants 1 to 3-Pandarinathan, Madhavan and Muthukrishnan against the judgment and decree of declaration and permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.58 of 1990. A.S.No.4 of 1999 was filed by the defendants 3 and 4-Pandarinathan and Madhavan against the decree granted in O.S.No.59 of 1990. A.S.No.5 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff-Govindammal against the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.57 of 1990.
5. The learned Additional District Judge by the common judgment dated 31.01.2000 has partly allowed A.S.No.2 of 1999 and declared that Ex.A3 settlement deed dated 08.03.1985 is a forged document and partly dismissed the appeal by dismissing the suit in O.S.No.76 of 1988 on the ground of limitation. He has allowed A.S.Nos.3 and 4 of 1999 and consequently dismissed the suit in O.S.Nos.58 and 59 of 1990. He has dismissed A.S.No.5 of 1999 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.57 of 1990.
6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decr
